Online satirists made an 'Honest Government Ad' full of outlandish claims, but they might be true. WikiTribune is checking them

Online satirists made an 'Honest Government Ad' full of outlandish claims, but they might be true. WikiTribune is checking them

Highlights

Highlights

Content

Content

<strong>Normally there wouldn't be much point fact-checking satirists, but <a href="https://thejuicemedia.com/">The Juice Media</a> who put this out are popular and influential, and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW-OMR-iWOE">this video</a> is being shared as a kind of briefing material on Australia's <a href="http://Telecommunications and Other Legislation (Assistance and Access) Bill 2018">new data law</a> and its impact. If the claims aren't true, then, that's one issue. If they are true, that’s a different challenge. </strong>

<strong>Normally there wouldn't be much point fact-checking satirists, but <a href="https://thejuicemedia.com/">The Juice Media</a> who put this out are popular and influential, and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW-OMR-iWOE">this video</a> is being shared as a kind of briefing material on Australia's <a href="http://Telecommunications and Other Legislation (Assistance and Access) Bill 2018">new data law</a> and its impact. If the claims aren't true, then, that's one issue. If they are true, that’s a different challenge. </strong>

<strong><em>WikiTribune</em> is collecting the claims below, then checking them.</strong>

<strong><em>WikiTribune</em> is collecting the claims below, then checking them.</strong>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW-OMR-iWOE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW-OMR-iWOE

<strong>Claims to fact check:</strong>

<strong>Claims to fact check:</strong>

[contribute-c2a text="You can edit or expand this story" buttons="edit"]

[contribute-c2a text="You can edit or expand this story" buttons="edit"]

Preamble

"deliberately vague and hard to understand"

"voluntary grey zone" sees consumer protections deactivated without warrant."general obligation to help and assist" to the best of their abilities. Protection from legal immunity of acting to assist the intelligence services.

functions like a "General warrant", put software or a tool here,

"because business models on the internet are very different... so it's hard to know who this applies too. "

&nbsp;

indirect ways to find a journalists source through metadata permitted, even though they can;t directly request the information for that reason.

<strong>Before we can fact check this, we need to list the substantive claims it makes. I went through <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW-OMR-iWOE">the video</a>, and here's the list I came up with:</strong>

<strong>Before we can fact check this, we need to list the substantive claims it makes. I went through <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW-OMR-iWOE">the video</a>, and here's the list I came up with:</strong>

<ol>

<ol>

<li>The new law will force tech companies insert code into their apps which lets the government "access your device" when you download the latest updates. - "OTT servies" yes</li>

<li>The new law will force tech companies insert code into their apps which lets the government "access your device" when you download the latest updates.</li>

<li>Companies that don't comply with the law face fines of up to $10 million (Australian). (True! See Details below)</li>

<li>Companies that don't comply with the law face fines of up to $10 million (Australian). (True! See Details below)</li>

<li>The Law is based on a UK law, but more intrusive because it removes calls for judicial oversight. All that will be required is the Attorney General, a political appointee, to determine the access is "reasonable and proportionate".</li>

<li>The Law is based on a UK law, but more intrusive because it removes calls for judicial oversight. All that will be required is the Attorney General, a political appointee, to determine the access is "reasonable and proportionate".</li>

<li>The government once doxxed ??? a welfare recipient for "criticising [the government]"</li>

<li>The government once doxxed ??? a welfare recipient for "criticising [the government]"</li>

<li>The government is currently prosecuting a whistleblower ("witness K") for "exposing [their] misconduct."</li>

<li>The government is currently prosecuting a whistleblower ("witness K") for "exposing [their] misconduct."</li>

<li>The government throws "kids in concentration camps for seeking asylum".</li>

<li>The government throws "kids in concentration camps for seeking asylum".</li>

<li>The government "prosecutes journalists who report on [the children in camps]"</li>

<li>The government "prosecutes journalists who report on [the children in camps]"</li>

<li>The government "gave half a million of ... tax dollars to a foundation full of [their] friends".</li>

<li>The government "gave half a million of ... tax dollars to a foundation full of [their] friends".</li>

<li>"Snowden wannabes" who disclose abuse of the new powers face 10 years in jail.</li>

<li>"Snowden wannabes" who disclose abuse of the new powers face 10 years in jail.</li>

<li>Australia is a testing ground for this novel and invasive law because it one of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes">Five Eyes</a> countries, but lacks a bill of rights.</li>

<li>Australia is a testing ground for this novel and invasive law because it one of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes">Five Eyes</a> countries, but lacks a bill of rights.</li>

<li>"International data requests" from the other Five Eyes governments will be "funnelled through" Australia, compromising the privacy of Canadians, New Zealanders, Americans and citizens of the UK.</li>

<li>"International data requests" from the other Five Eyes governments will be "funnelled through" Australia, compromising the privacy of Canadians, New Zealanders, Americans and citizens of the UK.</li>

<li>The Government is accepting public submissions about the bill on [email protected] until 10 September</li>

<li>The Government is accepting public submissions about the bill on [email protected] until 10 September</li>

Below we list what we've got so far in terms of answers. First however, let's have a quick look at the big picture.

The legislation as we understand it has two interlocking aims, one is to extend the obligation to cooperate with government agencies, which the major telcos or "carriage services" are already subject to, to the "over the top" services, like apps and websites, that we increasingly use. These apps, unlike phone calls or sms messages, are increasingly encrypted. That's where the second goal comes in: forcing companies to decrypt, data, or otherwise "remove protections", As Rohan Pearce writes for Computer World

<blockquote>The first level is voluntary assistance in response to a “technical assistance request” issued by an agency. The second level is a “technical assistance notice”, which requires a provider to give assistance to an agency that they are already capable of providing. That could include decryption of data in circumstances where the provider has access to the key.

The third and most extreme level is a “technical capability notice”: A requirement for a company to build new capabilities to assist police. Technical capability notices must be issued by the attorney-general.</blockquote>

Before we go any further, however, we must issue a disclaimer of sorts. Much about the bill is still unclear, not just to us but to the experts. Cyber Security expert Peter Coroneos told the Sydney Morning Herald: ""If you read between the lines of the legislation, you see the undeniable tension that government faces within its own ranks", and called the bill "complex", adding that it probably wasn't ready. David Vaile of the Australian Privacy Foundation told Wikitribune the language used was "deliberately slippery", leaving much for interpretation.

Mr Vaile biggest concern was with the first level, the "technical assistance request", in part because warrants are not required for these. Companies are not formally obliged to require (they face no direct penalty for not complying), but Vaile suggests they could still apply substantial pressure, and that language elsewhere in the bill encourages companies to do all they can to assist law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Furthermore, even though companies aren't forced to comply, consumers do lose protections - if a company or person provides information to, for example, the Australian Secret Intelligence Organisation, or the Federal Police either in response to such a request or because they "reasonably believe" the information will be useful to the authorities, they are granted civil immunity for their actions, with the example of breach of contract specifically listed. This removes a major barrier and gives the tech companies one less reason not to simply comply.

The industry however seems most concerned about the third level, a "technical capability notice", which can require them to change their product or introduce software developed or procured by the intelligence and law enforcement agencies into their "networks". The bill specifically states that the government will not ask companies to "implement or build a systemic weakness, or a systemic vulnerability, into a form of electronic protection” or rendering "systemic methods of authentication or encryption less effective.”

But not everyone agrees that can be done so tidily. The former digital affairs editor of Fairfax Media wrote in the Sydney Morning Herald that "There's no doubt about it: this bill will undermine encryption.". Further down in the same article he quotes Nicole Buskiewicz, head of the non-profit Digital Industry Group (which represents Facebook, Google, Twitter, Yahoo and other tech companies in Australia), as saying "The reality is that creating security vulnerabilities, even if they are built to combat crime, leaves us all open to attack from criminals," and, "This could have devastating implications for individuals, businesses, public safety and the broader economy".

<strong>Did <em>WikiTribune</em> miss anything? Why don't you have a look and expand the list? Maybe we got something wrong. Why don't you double check? When they flash a headline on the screen, we should see if we can find the article they are referring to, and check it means what they say.</strong>

In the article, Buskiewicz also echoes the concerns of the Australian Privacy Foundation, "We are extremely concerned at the lack of judicial oversight and checks and balances with this legislation."

With that out of the way, let's get down to the claims from the video!

<strong>CLAIM 1: The new law will force tech companies insert code into their apps which lets the government "access your device" when you download the latest updates. </strong>

True. To the best of our understanding, this could happen. (Help us on the talk page if you know better.)

Categories

Categories

Article type

Article type

Tags

Tags

Author byline

Author byline

Yes

Yes

Has hero

Has hero

No

No

Hero Alignment

Hero Alignment

No

No

Hero Image URL

Hero Image URL

None

None

Featured Image URL

Featured Image URL

Sources

Sources

<p>Austin’s process for making and checking the list: <a href="https://portal.writeinstone.com/#/685/Honest-Government-Add-is-Honest" rel="nofollow">https://portal.writeinstone.com/#/685/Honest-Government-Add-is-Honest</a>?</p>

<p>Austin’s process for making and checking the list: <a href="https://portal.writeinstone.com/#/685/Honest-Government-Add-is-Honest" rel="nofollow">https://portal.writeinstone.com/#/685/Honest-Government-Add-is-Honest</a>?</p>

WikiTribuneWikiTribuneOpen menuCloseSearchLikeBackNextOpen menuClose menuPlay videoRSS FeedShare on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on RedditFollow us on InstagramFollow us on YoutubeConnect with us on LinkedinConnect with us on DiscordEmail us